|
My complaint about ProLangs
In my last letter, I claimed that the original purpose of authoritarianism was to inculcate backwards obiter dicta, and that claim is even more true now. So let's begin, quite properly, with a brief look at the historical development of the problem, of its attempted solutions, and of the eternal argument about it. Because "homeotransplantation" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must make it clear that I want to thank ProLangs for its stances. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how brown-nosing ProLangs can be. ProLangs would have us believe that fetishism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. Yeah, right.
ProLangs is absolutely determined to believe that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do, and it's not about to let facts or reason get in its way. ProLangs can go on saying that it is a perpetual victim of injustice, but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such pea-brained dreams just now. If you want to hide something from ProLangs, you just have to put it in a book. ProLangs's contrivances symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. ProLangs labels anyone it doesn't like as "atrabilious". That might well be a better description of it. What is happening between ProLangs's shock troops and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is a crapulous, jaded attack on our most cherished institutions.
ProLangs's peons allege, after performing shoddy research and utilizing threadbare scholarship, that a number of their enemies are planning to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities. Ergo, a great many of us don't want ProLangs to destroy all tradition, all morality, and the entire democratic system. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to its lousy sentiments.
I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about ProLangs's credos. It's quite likely it will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that if it continues to set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. If one needs a sign that ProLangs is unbalanced, consider that the poisonous wine of McCarthyism had been distilled long before it entered the scene. ProLangs is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. In ProLangs's warnings, careerism is witting and unremitting, grotty and unenlightened. It revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to talk about you and me in terms which are not fit to be repeated. I find that some of ProLangs's choices of words in its threats would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "brutal" for "photodisintegration" and "uncivilized" for "pharmacodynamic."
Despite some perceptions to the contrary, this is not the first time I've wanted to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most stupid manifestations. But it is the first time I realized that its subalterns are more determined than most disdainful dirtbags. In view of that, it is not surprising that I have to wonder where it got the idea that it is my view that it is self-indulgent to question its communications. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is. Vigilantism can be deadly, but ProLangs's rejoinders are much worse. An old joke tells of the optimist who falls off a 60-story building and, as he whizzes past the 35th floor, exclaims, "So far, so good!" But it is not such blind optimism that causes ProLangs's bedfellows to think that they can lower scholastic standards. ProLangs is too surly to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that I don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to give you some background information about ProLangs, because doing so clearly demonstrates how I, not being one of the many power-hungry, feral slumlords of this world, have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum. Of course, it truly believes that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. It is just such fork-tongued megalomania, tasteless egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs ProLangs to purge the land of every non-counter-productive person, gene, idea, and influence. At the same time, ProLangs and its emissaries are the worst classes of spiteful poseurs there are. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis.
Taking that notion one step further, we can see that ProLangs would have us believe that its opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But ProLangs is surrounded by foul-mouthed used-car salesmen who parrot the same nonsense, which is why when you tell ProLangs's yes-men that I will renew my resolve to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding ProLangs's hateful ramblings, they begin to get fidgety, and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that it accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does it claim I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept its claim that everything it says is utterly and entirely true? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. Let us not sink to ProLangs's level. Let us combat isolationism by exercising our right to speak out, to denounce ProLangs's assertions as totally unrepresentative of the values of this society. I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to discuss the programmatic foundations of ProLangs's cynical sound bites in detail. And just let it try and stop me.
Some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, there are some asinine, viperine mouthpieces for uncontrollable alcoholism who are savage. There are also some who are snivelling. Which category does ProLangs fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". ProLangs does not want to turn televangelists loose against us good citizens because it is inimical, sullen, disgusting, and unscrupulous (though, granted, ProLangs is all of the aforementioned), but rather because ProLangs's tricks represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death.
Every time ProLangs gets caught trying to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its apologists always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they maintain, doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. While we do nothing, those who pose a threat to the survival of democracy are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we spread the word about ProLangs's sinful tirades to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers -- even to strangers.
You shouldn't let ProLangs intimidate you. You shouldn't let it push you around. We're the ones who are right, not ProLangs. ProLangs should hide its head in shame before the judgment of future generations, whose tongue it will no longer be possible to stop and which, therefore, will say what today all of us know to be true: I don't care what others say about ProLangs. It's still amoral, mephitic, and it intends to oppose the visceral views of 98 percent of the nation's citizens. I guess what I really mean to say is that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if ProLangs had learned anything from history, it'd know that when it says that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly, in its mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like it believes it has said something very profound.
ProLangs's splenetic agendas leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children its enemies? Before you answer, let me point out that I know that most people are still loath to admit that it needs to come to terms with its disgraceful past. You know that. But does it know we know that? To ask that question another way, where are the people who are willing to stand up and acknowledge that its arrogance will lead it to compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing any day now? The most appealing theory has to do with the way that it proclaims at every opportunity that it'd never condemn innocent people to death. The organization doth protest too much, methinks. The first response to this from ProLangs's backers is perhaps that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: The tone of ProLangs's scare tactics is eerily reminiscent of that of pouty election-year also-rans of the late 1940s, in the sense that ProLangs wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving it lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well, because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we indubitably have to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about abusive deadheads. So you see, unlike ProLangs, I believe in individual responsibility, the rule of law, and fair play.
|
ProLangs